Great posts all around here, kudos to everyone!
As for the „origin“ story, maybe we just had to have CR sold to us as one because during those years it was the popular thing to do.
I think that trend has passed. I hope.
2 Likes
I do hold an opinion (oh, oh, here we go), that if there was a chap called Derek Flamewell who wrote books about some British agent in the here and now, that they’d disappear without a trace.
There really isn’t that much to him - he’s about as interesting as, I dunno, Jack Ryan. As a celluloid character, his hold on the audience is a mix of star power and longevity, rather than any inherent trait in that character. If we’re honest with ourselves, Bond could easily be four different characters (I’m exempting Laz, who was pretty much an SC impersonation, and Brozza, who was pretty much an impersonation of all his predecessors), as much as one character played by a bunch of different actors.
Half-a-century in, he exists…to exist. When there’s not much to him, we complain about the puns and the pigeons, and when there is something to him, well, it all becomes a bit much.
Do I look like a man who would start trouble?
5 Likes
Quite an accurate view id argue. Bond is the same thing he was when Fleming first started writing him in 1952, what he needs to be for the individual telling the tale, not necessarily a character in his own right. Sherlock Holmes would be much the same.
3 Likes
That’s true. We got a lot more of that in Skyfall. But what Casino Royale did give us is Bond’s entry into MI6, which as far as I know we’d never seen before. But his life is very much a blank slate until we get a glimpse of other possibilities with Vesper.
3 Likes
Though I am quoting David_M, a question for all: did Bond get an origin story because origin stories were au courant when CR was made? Most community members follow popular film trends with greater insight than I do, so this question popped into my head reading all these smart responses.
Further: would/does an origin story interfere with Bond’s function as a placeholder, as elaborated by @Dustin, who is
A smoothness that also allows him to exist in any historical moment, and allows for multiple actors to portray him.
3 Likes
I‘d say yes.
Aside from the Star Wars prequels which centered on the „origin story“ of Darth Vader, „Batman begins“ was the major reboot of the day. And most if not all Marvel heroes started with their origin stories. Even the widely known origin of Superman got retold in „Man of Steel“.
CR was smack in the middle of these, following a trend as if it were blaxploitation or Kung Fu.
5 Likes
They even stated Batman Begins as an influence.
Given that film used their go-to crew because it was their go-to crew, that was fair game.
4 Likes
Two crucial elements probably played into that particular direction. For one, Nolan started his Batman run and explicitly wanted to make it a unique, self contained arc. The industry took a long thoughtful look at BATMAN BEGINS and its success in relaunching the character.
But I suppose the bigger role here played that Craig was a new Bond who would be given, by an enormous stroke of luck, the first Bond novel which just so happened to contain a paragraph and a half of exposition dialogue recounting Bond’s first two killings in the service - the first one a decade ago in the war (and entirely based on wishful thinking on Fleming’s part, see Henry Chancellor, James Bond - The Man and his World’, p62).
After that, Bond was simply given the 00. It’s nowhere stated explicitly two killings were a requirement to get into that branch. The much more prosaic truth is that’s simply a bureaucratic way of pooling the relevant manpower when personnel willing and able to kill is in demand.
Bond tells this to Vesper and Mathis, both times probably breaching the Official Secrets Act, but not caring at all because he really tells it to us readers.
Bond also tells Mathis ‘Well, in the last few years I’ve killed two villains.’ Evidently he didn’t have to do it since, or at least that’s what the book indicates. The literary Bond wasn’t in fact an eager serial killer and could at times ponder his own actions longer than we might expect.
But be that as it may, the whole 00-section voodoo was just a way for Fleming to make Bond and his trade seem a little more interesting, add some mysterious touch to the tale. It’s not an ‘origin’, just a simple bit of background. If anything, Casino Royale’s Bond reads as if he was about forty and likely a service member since before the war. And it was - at this point - probably the war that got him into killing.
If there was something like an ‘origin’ story in Fleming it must be the sparse obituary ‘M’ put in The Times in ‘You Only Live Twice’. But it’s easy to see how the CASINO ROYALE script picked up on the scraps and ran with the idea of having Bond ‘new’ in his 007 shoes. Ideas of showing an ageing Bond huffing up stairs or of rebooting the show have been in Eon’s orbit for some time. Sooner or later they all come down…
1 Like
I’ve never seen any early versions of the CR script, but I often wonder if the film would’ve gone more down the “origin” path had they cast someone as young as Henry Cavill. I got the impression maybe that was the plan, but then things shifted once Craig was cast since he fell pretty much in the “normal” age range for Bond (a couple years younger than Brosnan or Dalton when they started, but older than Connery or Lazenby). That would’ve made it harder to lean hard into the “just learning the ropes” angle. As it is, his “bull in a China shop” approach to the job comes off as not so much “the folly of youth” as just willful recklessness, a baked-in character flaw as opposed to a temporary state of inexperience he’ll eventually grow out of. Indeed, it ends up being a part of his schtick and continues to define his character for the rest of his tenure. But was that the original intent, or was Bond originally supposed to “learn something” from the brouhaha he sparked by blowing up the embassy?
I think it’s likely Eon wanted to do an origin story for Bond but realized there can’t really be one. He’s not that kind of character. He can have a backstory (recruited from the Royal Navy, raised by an aunt, etc) but that’s not really the same as an “origin.”
Anyway I’m grateful we didn’t get more than we did. I still can’t believe they tried to saddle Simon Templar with an “origin” in the Val Kilmer film. Talk about wrong-headed.
2 Likes
Paul Haggis, when polishing the CR script, was quoted as „Bond‘s 28, no gadgets“, so apparently they did want him to be a rookie. When Craig was cast this was changed to suit him.
1 Like
I’d say no. Bond never “got” an origin story, because it was there all the time, existing in form of Ian Fleming’s first novel. It just hadn’t been filmed “properly” (whatever that means – you guys know my take on CR67 
), and also could never be used for references, simply because they didn’t have the rights.
But they always wanted to do this movie, and when they finally had the rights, they did – with all the necessary consequences that resulted from the fact that this would have to be done with a new actor (and thus not invite his predecessor back).
CR would have been made anway. Maybe the fact that origin stories were the thing back in the day helped with the decision to pull it off immediately and not make a final Brosnan Bond before. Or maybe it was the fact that the actor BB wanted was willing and availble at the time (and probably wouldn’t have been a few years later). But I don’t think the origin story aspect was the main reason for making CR.
3 Likes
Not the main reason, I agree, but it sure was one more reason to do it at that time.
The only origin story that I could see EON doing fully would have been the unmade Bond 15 or Forever and a Day by Anthony Horowitz. Horowitz has said that EON adapting it is extremely unlikely, though. Ironically, Dynamite Comics abandoned their James Bond Origins comics, sadly. As stated before, EON used Batman Begins for CR. Maybe the next Bond will use Batman 89 or The Batman as an influence. As in Bond being on the job, but early in his career.
Again, my thanks to all.
Random thoughts:
When I hear origin story, I think of knowing about a character’s childhood; their trauma; how that trauma plays out; how it manifests in their adult life. The Ur-version for me is the X-Men and their origins as mutants.
The origin story for Bond prior to the Craig era was that he was a military officer who joined the secret service, is sent out on missions, and has a license to kill. He has certain character traits (fungible), but no psychology, so to speak–no personality profile.
Maybe this is less an origin story than narrative-positioning facts, akin to knowing that Hercule Poirot was on the Belgian police force, came to England, and loves symmetry. Ross MacDonald said that if Lew Archer turned sideways, he would disappear. Both are more defined by what they do–engage in detection–than who they are, where they come from, and what influences form them.
3 Likes
Batman Begins came out in Summer 2005, with no one knowing whether it would be a success or not. By that time, the decision to do CR (=origin story) had long been made, also the original idea to cast a younger actor. If at all, Batman Begins may have encouraged them to stick with the concept even though they ultimately chose a not-quite-so-young actor, but that’s all I can see. In BB, we see Bruce Wayne becoming Batman (which should have been the movie title, because Batman doesn’t just begin, he develops). In CR, Bond has just become 007, but we don’t see such a development, just the “final exam” – the two kills – which earn him a promotion. CR is not “Bond Begins” but “007 Begins”. We get much more of that kind of origin in Skyfall, most of which was directly taken from Fleming (i.e. known before, just not in film).
1 Like
so imo the only way to do the origin story would be a 10 part Casino Royale tv-show with flashback bits with Bonds school days, the death of his parents and the help of his aunt, and then mixed with 2 or 3 episodes of his military carreer
1 Like
Fleming was never interested in giving Bond such a thing. Bond was Fleming’s escape from his own issues and traumata: no way to differentiate himself from his father cause that figure was considered a hero and sacrosanct after his death; an overbearing, controlling mother with impossible demands Fleming couldn’t live up to; an older brother against whom he had to compete for the best part of his life; finally growing up in the machinations of a boarding school and later in various jobs he either didn’t excel or his mother deemed unfit for his class.
Bond was all the things Fleming wished he had been himself. No bothersome family, no mother to ruin his life with her ‘new money’ snobbery, adventure in the acceptable duty of the nation’s interests. Fleming certainly had no wish to weigh down his hero to exorcise his own demons, perhaps because he already did that with alcohol and his adventure thrillers.
5 Likes
Perfectly stated.
And I, actually, find it refreshing to have a hero who‘s just… there.
No deep rooted trauma, no monocausal reason for his behavior, no constant navel gazing, no ton of flashbacks stopping the plot with expositional baggage (which is only forced into any meaningful connection to the present and could easily be excised).
And especially with Bond the world already knows who he is. His lack of „layers“ is what makes it possible to communicate to a mass audience what to expect.
Let him react to what is going on in his path and show his character through his actions. But don’t contort him in order to add „motivation“. As Hitchcock said to an actor „your motivation is your paycheck“.
6 Likes
The only origin story we ever got was Madeline’s in NTTD.
1 Like
Exactly. The thematic meat in CR is Bond being tempted by love and nearly throwing his career away just as it began. But instead he’s burned and doubles down on a unattached life of solitude - which is how he started out in the beginning of the story. Forever and a Day takes place beforehand and that dead inside mindset is what Horowitz builds up to.
3 Likes